As I criticized TTC, you copy from a website, but what merit do you have to even trust that website? Do you really put your faith on what others write online, or do you do the research yourself and investigate it yourself? Are you a master of Greek mythology, Egyptian mythology, Hindu/Buddhist history, etc?

Your argument is based on "evolution of religion." So what? What exactly is the argument in that? When mammals evolved into the human species, does that make humanity any less real? (I suppose you can imagine how incredibly amazing it is our existence must be, but I'm not sure if that's the context you're thinking...but in that sense, ya, Christianity is truly incredibly amazing )

« Last Edit: February 16, 2011, 10:29:57 PM by minasoliman »

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

It's because i understand the abstract nature of consciousness and mental processes. It's no different that the evolution of Atheism, or even Agnostism. Most of the meaning we derive our thoughts on are through the development of language to which can lead to abstract perception of the things we sense and observe to which includes ourselves. Its the natural physical flow of energy/information and the evolution of it. The relevance of our ideas and beliefs greatly depend on the real world. So things like the SUN, Earthquakes ect can spark the evolution of the GOD concept. Fear is usually a key trigger to such ideological philosophies. Example:

If I could take an Apache Helicopter, demonstrate it's power, and then Land it in the middle of that era, or even Jerusalem, It would be very likely to have made Jesus rather insignificant. You might have ended up worshiping the Apache, or if I was in a group, multiple Apaches.

So yes, there is some truth in religion, as in how it develops and how it interprets identical information in abstract. It's just like 2 people can view a red truck in different perspectives even though the information is identical. One could derive it as GOD like, another as a threat, another as awesome, another as ugly, or another as to manly or sexist. Why? because we have all this other information stored in our head that includes language, and our experiences since we were born to which shapes how our minds perceive reality even though it doesn't actually change the reality of reality. This is the fundamentals of development of morals, ethics, and opinions. Usually, such things are manipulable through emotion, and fear because that is the nature of consciousness. It's the positive, negative, and neutral feedback of the continuous flow of information through our senses, and the environment. It's the same process that governs evolution, adaptation, natural selection, choices, decisions or any phenomenon to which can exist, or does exist. It's energy processing energy because energy can interfere with itself to give rise to complex. It's an energy driven ecological system to which is a chaotic system with simple principles that govern it.

This however doesn't mean there isn't the possibility of consciousness in pure energy form to where the biological brain isn't required. So I don't rule out higher beings, or even the plausibility of more powerful entities than ourselves. I just realize that none of them can create that which we all require to exist. And that is informational value and substance.. So my view strayed from common religious ideologies through my own exploring of information theory.

But yes, it's possible that some entity could have caused the big bang either by mistake or by pure intention.. It's simply not really relevant from my perspective. We could even go down the Men In Black aspect of infinite progression of realities (worlds within worlds). I can even give an example of plausible transcendence of reality without defying material-physicality:

Quote

THE MUTE ARGUMENT:

A child is born from our perspective to be unable to feel, see, hear, or smell to where this would result In the fact that this child would be completely unable to respond to any outside source of stimuli, or unable to sense and observe it. This child would be in a solipsistic state of mind to where this child's universe could never consciously perceive that of our own universe even though this child is equally apart of it.(this fits into the concept of religion where death transcends to another reality). This in a sense is an example of Occam's Razor, and a Sollipsist reality.. This child would not know that itself is a living biological being born from the whom of his mother. And it gets better, we being the outside observers could never peer into this child's mind, or this child's universe to understand what kind of reality this child is experiencing. We could never currently establish if this child is even consciously self-aware, or has imagined a whole different universe of existence. Thus can a world be created within the mind based off what little information the locked in mind may have gathered during it's development in the whom?

So what happens if this child wakes up and discovers that itself is apart of another universe much grander than the one he was locked into? And what does that say about our own universe?.. Are we our selves locked in? Is there an ever progression of reality? So if we die and wake up in another universe, what kind of understanding would we have of reality or of existence? Or even what kind of understanding would we have of that state of existence?. So if this child wakes up and tells us, or explains to us what his reality was like, He nor we could ever really know if we are in a similar Lock-in, or explain our entire existence and the universe. This also applies to any conscious entity simply because omniscience is impossible.

However, what we do know is that no matter what the case may be, the mind will always require containment, a place to exist, dimensional value, information and material physicality.

You are not infinite. I was playing on what Sleeper had said regarding those that would like to control God so He could do whatever that person wants Him to do.

Quote

That's because it is a logical fallacy. And it's purpose was to subliminally manipulate the ignorant into indoctrination. It's the play on the fear tools commonly used in religious dogma. Otherwise their ideology wouldn't have anything to stand on.

If Pascal's Wager was used as a manipulation ideology it still does not make it a logical fallacy. But you have made it into a fallacy by presupposing Pascal intended the wager as a manipulation tactic. You have to do two things before understanding the Wager. 1) Read Pensées 2) Understand the background of why it was created. Pascal lived in a time of great scepticism. During the time of Pascal people were skeptical and had a hard time using faith and reason alone to believe in God. Here's what's interesting about the Wager, it introduced a third concept by placing God only on a bet. As I previously alluded to, this isn't something to live by and isn't really a deep faith in God, however the intention was to hold up atheism not to mind control people into believing in God.

Quote

You might actually want to check his resources lol. They are well backed up, and you might just learn some actual history.

I have read the book myself, it seems to make out that the formation of religion is a man-made thing, whether or not you agree with that is your own choice, although I feel this is the overall agenda of the book, if it has an agenda at all. Armstrong seems to skim over the details at times making religious practice seem as if it just cropped up all of sudden. The thing is, is that if she wanted to do a more comprehensive study you would find the book would be a large as a VCR.

[quote[Well-sourced Wikipedia articles describing the evolution of Jewish monotheism from polytheism:http://www.youtube.com/redirect?q=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FMonotheism%23Origin_and_development&session_token=8IEKUYxgMRi-d3lhrXnbkr2bK1d8MTI5Nzk3NzI5Mw%3D%3D[/quote]Nowhere in this article does it "describe" Jewish monotheism from polytheism. It actually further supports a foundation on monotheism: "The Hebrew Bible describes the God of Israel as superior to other gods, commanding the Israelites not to worship other gods, but only the God who brought them out of Egypt (Ex. 20:1-4; Deut. 5:6-7). Through the experience of Babylonian captivity, the Deuteronomists developed the monotheistic concept, and it is revealed in Second Isaiah. The concept of monotheism is expressed in Isaiah 44:06, "I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god" and it's developed in Isaiah 44:09-20, a satire on the making and worship of idols. In it the foolishness of idolaters is elaborated, such as the carpenter who carves an idol and worships it."

"Israelite monotheism was the end result of a gradual process which began with the normal beliefs and practices of the ancient world." I don't see how that is a problem and in regards to Judaism, because Jews originated from the Israelites.

How is that bottom pieced well sourced? It all comes from one book and by one editor on the section, John Rogerson. It's interesting however I would need to see a few various other sources to come to a conclusion.

"Due to the sloppy handling of the original material much of the library is irreparably jumbled, making it impossible for scholars to discern and reconstruct many of the original texts, although some have survived intact."Oh and we are quite well aware of similarities to the Epic of Gilgamesh. What's fascinating are not the similarities but the differences between the two. Genesis is a book of various traditions in light of the one God, however for us it is a spiritual book and prefigures events in the New Testament.

I got tired of trying to pinpoint what it is you specifically want me to look at. Just throwing me wikipedia articles and books from amazon.com is detremintal to your argument, because you need to extract the information for me to bother with the issues.

Oh and on the Documentary Hypothesis, which has been debunked by R.N. Whybray

1) DH “relies on a complexity of converging arguments” (the old ‘house of cards’ argument)

2) DH cannot account for all the material in the Pentateuch. Even Wellhausen had to admit the law codes did not fit tidily, and the distinction between the so called earliest sources J and E is often blurred.

3) DH is “dependent on a particular view of the history of the religion of Israel,” an evolutionary view, that is no longer persuasive to many.

4) Authors are required to be consistent, but this same criterion is not applied to redactors (this is one of the strongest arguments in my view). Such a view requiring consistency also fails to take into account the possibility of deliberate use of these features for aesthetic or literary purposes.

5) Doublets, repetitions, inconsistencies may already have existed in the oral stage of transmission.

6) Breaking up these narratives (“scissors and paste method”) lacks ancient literary analgoies, and destroys literary/aesthetic qualities of the narratives that should not be ignored.

7) DH places an over-emphasis on differences of language and style, especially in light of our ignorance of the history of the Hebrew language.

8 ) “Constants” required throughout each document (i.e., single style, purpose, theology) and an unbroken narrative thread do not exist in any document.

9) Pre-exilic authors appear to konw nothing of ancestral and Mosaic traditions, raising doubt about an early (United Monarchy) date for J or E.

10) Countless attempts to modify the hypothesis are only indicators of its breakdown.

11) Supplementary and fragmentary hypothesis have been neglected and need to be reassessed.

From R.N. Whybray’s The Making of the Pentateuch, (1987) is alternative proposal was that the Pentateuch was essentially the work of a single author who drew upon multiple sources and disregarded, or was ignorant of, modern notions of literary consistency and smoothness of style and language.

Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

If Pascal's Wager was used as a manipulation ideology it still does not make it a logical fallacy.

Actually it does.. The wager is the assumption of two theoretical options when there are an untold number of theoretical options. The wager is similar to a carrot and stick to where they think it's a 50/50 wager when it's ridiculous to begin with. I can infinitely make that wager in any reality I find myself to be in. That includes A GOD of your GOD's GOD.. Ect.

Quote

But you have made it into a fallacy by presupposing Pascal intended the wager as a manipulation tactic.

Incorrect, it's commonly used by theists as a manipulating tactic.. Context is important there.

Quote

I have read the book myself, it seems to make out that the formation of religion is a man-made thing, whether or not you agree with that is your own choice, although I feel this is the overall agenda of the book, if it has an agenda at all. Armstrong seems to skim over the details at times making religious practice seem as if it just cropped up all of sudden. The thing is, is that if she wanted to do a more comprehensive study you would find the book would be a large as a VCR.

No, it's more of seen as summarizing the process than assuming it magically cropped up. Regardless, it's definitely man made.

Quote

Nowhere in this article does it "describe" Jewish monotheism from polytheism. It actually further supports a foundation on monotheism: "The Hebrew Bible describes the God of Israel as superior to other gods, commanding the Israelites not to worship other gods, but only the God who brought them out of Egypt (Ex. 20:1-4; Deut. 5:6-7). Through the experience of Babylonian captivity, the Deuteronomists developed the monotheistic concept, and it is revealed in Second Isaiah. The concept of monotheism is expressed in Isaiah 44:06, "I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god" and it's developed in Isaiah 44:09-20, a satire on the making and worship of idols. In it the foolishness of idolaters is elaborated, such as the carpenter who carves an idol and worships it."

This is more or less where you clearly miss edit parts of the bible that contradict monotheism. Care to post those here for us? Monotheism didn't come more predominate in the bible until later into the bible. Also the known editing of the creation of man in multiple god images vs one god's image. The arguments you make is about a GOD trying to assert itself as the only GOD. Almost like a ruler trying to assert itself as king of the hill.

Isrealites did not seem to strictly be monotheists.. They seemed to only actively worshiped one god while believing in other GOD's. eventually the One GOD became GOD of all GOD's or the monotheism it is today. You can feel free to post even the conflicting creation story of man's creation from more than one GOD vs just one GOD here for us.

The issues of early OT polytheism turned monotheism lacks sufficient evidence. It's mere speculation driven by supposed textual discrepancies. Christians have recognized textual discrepancies before anyone can even used them as a nail against them, but never were those textual discrepancies involved a "hidden polytheism" trying to be erased from history. On the contrary, while these terms for the one God may have been recognized as terms for the pagan gods around them, it wasn't a belief of paganism that the Hebrew author was portraying, but a refutation of paganism by the use of these different names for the same God, as a way of destroying the notion that a multiplicity of gods exist.

Perhaps if one find manuscripts for this, then the speculation may become sound theory. But I find it odd you place your faith on this to strongly validate your disbelief when you like to criticize theists for doing the same concerning theism, accusing us of holding value to mere ideas in our heads. What makes your speculation no different?

And Pascal's wager is certainly not accepted by all Christians. In fact, a lot of Christians reject that idea, as it cheapens the goal of a Christian. It's useless to have God as a mere idea and not practice it. God as a mere idea is precisely and only Pascal's wager, not the Christian ideal.

« Last Edit: February 17, 2011, 02:16:25 AM by minasoliman »

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Actually it does.. The wager is the assumption of two theoretical options when there are an untold number of theoretical options. The wager is similar to a carrot and stick to where they think it's a 50/50 wager when it's ridiculous to begin with. I can infinitely make that wager in any reality I find myself to be in. That includes A GOD of your GOD's GOD.. Ect.

Your original assertion was that the Wager was a logical fallacy because it could be used as a manipulation device. That is not a logical fallacy. The Wager presupposes two theoretical options, correctly might I add, in the belief in God and its outcome and the disbelief in God and its outcome. As I said twice already, this isn't to say "You must believe in God" but rather at the time of writing it, Pascal was facing critics to give them something to think about.

In essence he's basically saying "Can you be so sure there is no God?"

Quote

Incorrect, it's commonly used by theists as a manipulating tactic.. Context is important there.

Again I said what Pascal intended it to be used as, not what theists use it for. Anybody can read something and misinterpret its usage and not use it for what it really means. It's like the case when Jesus said if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off.

Quote

No, it's more of seen as summarizing the process than assuming it magically cropped up. Regardless, it's definitely man made.

You are saying the Bible is man made? You mean actually written by humans? I hate to break this to you but.....DUH!

Quote

This is more or less where you clearly miss edit parts of the bible that contradict monotheism. Care to post those here for us? Monotheism didn't come more predominate in the bible until later into the bible. Also the known editing of the creation of man in multiple god images vs one god's image. The arguments you make is about a GOD trying to assert itself as the only GOD. Almost like a ruler trying to assert itself as king of the hill.

Isrealites did not seem to strictly be monotheists.. They seemed to only actively worshiped one god while believing in other GOD's. eventually the One GOD became GOD of all GOD's or the monotheism it is today. You can feel free to post even the conflicting creation story of man's creation from more than one GOD vs just one GOD here for us.

Read mina's post above this one. You keep pointing to Israelites when what is important is the perspective of Judaism which worships the One God, and the Jews were God's chosen people.

I personally think there is sufficient evidence..It's just not a very well investigated subject. Or at least not very well documented. And we can't really rely on modern translations when they have been so overly edited. That is another problem. But I agree that the entire picture isn't cut and dry, or perfectly clear on the subject.

Quote

It's mere speculation driven by supposed textual discrepancies.

That is called a valid argument. Especially if you apply the scientific method. Textual discrepancies a key clues into something than needs further investigation. And that is why I have a big problem with biblical contradictions because I was always a biblical literalist.

Quote

Christians have recognized textual discrepancies before anyone can even used them as a nail against them,

If you found such things in a math quiz, or in science it would be evaluated, scrutinized, and investigated to actually account for and completely understand those discrepancies. Sweeping them under the rug just makes it worse.

Quote

but never were those textual discrepancies involved a "hidden polytheism" trying to be erased from history.

The problem is, the context of discrepancies point to exactly that, and we don't ignore the regions history with polytheism. Nor do we assume these people had zero knowledge of polytheism or other past religious polytheist views. When I read the modern bible I see it as one GOD asserting itself over all others..

Quote

On the contrary, while these terms for the one God may have been recognized as terms for the pagan gods around them, it wasn't a belief of paganism that the Hebrew author was portraying, but a refutation of paganism by the use of these different names for the same God, as a way of destroying the notion that a multiplicity of gods exist.

Or the taking over of those GOD's to incorporate them into one GOD. Which seems like some of the evidence suggests. But again, it does need further investigation.

Quote

Perhaps if one find manuscripts for this, then the speculation may become sound theory. But I find it odd you place your faith on this to strongly validate your disbelief when you like to criticize theists for doing the same concerning theism, accusing us of holding value to mere ideas in our heads. What makes your speculation no different?

This is only part of the reason.. There is much more to why I waded away from the ideology of GOD's.

Quote

And Pascal's wager is certainly not accepted by all Christians. In fact, a lot of Christians reject that idea, as it cheapens the goal of a Christian. It's useless to have God as a mere idea and not practice it. God as a mere idea is precisely and only Pascal's wager, not the Christian ideal.

I agree, I didn't find it acceptable when I was a Christian either. I always thought it was nonsensical. And when I see people use it, it's intention is usually for purpose of manipulation.

That is called a valid argument. Especially if you apply the scientific method. Textual discrepancies a key clues into something than needs further investigation. And that is why I have a big problem with biblical contradictions because I was always a biblical literalist.

And here lies the problem that many here have debated against TTC with, the fact that you use Protestant Bibliolatry as a measure to criticize Orthodox Christian exegesis. It's simply incorrect. I see you've entered the evolution debate, and you might find my arguments familiar and agreeable, and others confusing as I am tailoring to answer a certain Orthodox Christian perspective in the debate to appeal to the understanding of evolutionary science. I argue for an ancient Alexandrian exegetical method to understand real truth, and the possibility of allowing historical and scientific errors in the Scriptures for the the simple reason that the Scriptures convey primarily spiritual truth. The measuring stick thus becomes different, and my foundation on belief is different than the literalists, and I even argued that literalists are usually the ones who become atheists. I have argued time and again, and I challenge many who lost their belief, if you were raised a Christian allegorist, don't you think you'd turn out differently?

Quote

If you found such things in a math quiz, or in science it would be evaluated, scrutinized, and investigated to actually account for and completely understand those discrepancies. Sweeping them under the rug just makes it worse.

I never suggested these discrepancies were swept under the rug. The discrepancies I'm describing are the superficial things, like historical and scientific claims, and inner contradictions in the Scriptures. I'm saying Christians have an ancient tradition of actually addressing these discrepancies (hardly sounds like sweeping them under the rug) in a much different fashion usually than contemporary Protestantism.

Quote

The problem is, the context of discrepancies point to exactly that, and we don't ignore the regions history with polytheism. Nor do we assume these people had zero knowledge of polytheism or other past religious polytheist views. When I read the modern bible I see it as one GOD asserting itself over all others..

These views (hidden Hebrew Polytheism) are new. Never where they considered even by the ancient commentators like Philo, or even the Essene writings (which actually proves the integrity the the OT Scriptures, at least as far back as their time). But I think you and I agree there needs to be more investigation. The onus of proof, I believe, is on those who make these claims. However, I will say, the different names are indeed recognized by the Christian community, but the interpretation is different. Modern theologians call these stories and names of God in the Torah as "demythologizing" the community around them.

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Mina, I'd hate to interject on your conversation but I am primarily interested in the Alexandrian view of allegorizing the whole OT in the light of Christ. You have any documents, articles, etc that you could point me to? Much thanks.

Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

Mina, I'd hate to interject on your conversation but I am primarily interested in the Alexandrian view of allegorizing the whole OT in the light of Christ. You have any documents, articles, etc that you could point me to? Much thanks.

For Russian Orthodox references, you have the late Bishop Alexander Mileant, who does try to take a quasi-literalist view that actually tries to validate evolution, while arguing that Church fathers may make mistakes.

In any case, I've argued this repeated in the Evolution thread.

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

And here lies the problem that many here have debated against TTC with, the fact that you use Protestant Bibliolatry as a measure to criticize Orthodox Christian exegesis. It's simply incorrect. I see you've entered the evolution debate, and you might find my arguments familiar and agreeable, and others confusing as I am tailoring to answer a certain Orthodox Christian perspective in the debate to appeal to the understanding of evolutionary science. I argue for an ancient Alexandrian exegetical method to understand real truth, and the possibility of allowing historical and scientific errors in the Scriptures for the the simple reason that the Scriptures convey primarily spiritual truth. The measuring stick thus becomes different, and my foundation on belief is different than the literalists, and I even argued that literalists are usually the ones who become atheists. I have argued time and again, and I challenge many who lost their belief, if you were raised a Christian allegorist, don't you think you'd turn out differently?

Actually biblical literalists are often the one's that don't become Atheists. And real truth is never true without actually validating it. Assumptions can but rarely lead to truth. Spiritual truth is what you seek in the philosophy of your belief, but even then without validation actual truth is never verified, or substantiated. Errors in the Bible point to inability to establish truth. It's pretty much a mess. But even Atheists use the biblical stories to teach their kids lessons in life while ignoring those that contradict those lessons (such as genocide of every living thing on earth).. It's a matter of what truth of philosophy you want to gain from it or see in it.

Quote

I never suggested these discrepancies were swept under the rug. The discrepancies I'm describing are the superficial things, like historical and scientific claims, and inner contradictions in the Scriptures.

Those aren't superficial.. Especially when one of the major contradictions (especially in the New Testament) is Unconditional Love while in the bible GOD himself commits Genocide or hypocrisy of the 10 commandments. The Island of Dr Monroe is very good depiction of what's both wrong with science and religion. I don't find spiritual truth in death, murder, genocide, or even the invention of a food chain that rips each-other apart for food to at all be appealing. It's not just based on the historical claims, or scientific discrepancies.. The spiritual contradictions of the bible are equally apart of the problem for me. I would not worship something that has even considered genocide as an option.

Quote

I'm saying Christians have an ancient tradition of actually addressing these discrepancies (hardly sounds like sweeping them under the rug) in a much different fashion usually than contemporary Protestantism.

They do, because it spiritually you have to deal with them as stated above.

Quote

These views (hidden Hebrew Polytheism) are new. Never where they considered even by the ancient commentators like Philo, or even the Essene writings (which actually proves the integrity the the OT Scriptures, at least as far back as their time). But I think you and I agree there needs to be more investigation. The onus of proof, I believe, is on those who make these claims. However, I will say, the different names are indeed recognized by the Christian community, but the interpretation is different. Modern theologians call these stories and names of God in the Torah as "demythologizing" the community around them.

Yes I agree, a much deeper investigation would be required to accurately address that.

But you do realize that under the textual criticism of the hidden polytheism theory, the stories of genocide is considered to most probably never happened simply to put the fear of God in people?

In Orthodox understanding, the idea of a powerful genocidal God is not a matter of advocating the literality of the story, but on its surface, for a primitive "babyish" minded people, it's a matter of keeping them in check (if you do bad things, bad things will happen to you, but on the flip side, in the good stories, if you do good things, good things will happen to you; see how bad things happened to bad people?). The idea of the NT in theological terms is that the human race has reached a certain level of maturity in thinking, and so such ideas can be seen in a spiritual manner, like the destruction of sin and evil (consider the fact that many of the "genocides" included the destruction of all the animals and booty, which is illogical at the time for certain spoils of war).

Either way, whether the polytheism theory or the theological understanding, such stories also are not seen as literal stories, neither are they literally advocated.

Your literalism seems to have had an effect on your eventual atheism, no? Many people I've talked to who grew up in a Christian literalist environment ended up becoming atheist simply for opening their minds to the sciences and testing them out, probably at first to try to prove the sciences wrong. A sincere theistic foundation and a prayer life built not on the foundation of false and childish interpretation of the Scriptures is a much stronger one against the pitfalls of disbelief.

« Last Edit: February 17, 2011, 11:16:25 AM by minasoliman »

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

I love it when atheists think they're biblical scholars. "You know what the Bible really teaches, don't you? Trust me, it doesn't teach what you think it does! I don't care what your scholars or teachers say it means, if I can read it and see it for myself, that's what it really teaches."

I've seen those attempted arguments, but none of them actually ever really addressed key points that make them untrue. Monotheism is well known to have derived from polytheism and other religions. It's still, even after so many translations and interpretations, is well rooted to it's polytheistic history. I don't sit here and discount the archeological history or tying parallels of past religions. The Story remains the same, especially Genesis's own rooted history in polytheism. Current Christianity is like what video games are today..An evolutionary product based in the roots of hit's history. It's like of FPS shooters will always have that DOOM and Wolfenstien roots to their own existence. You can of course try and deny this, but it won't make it go away.

I offer you a big fat "so what?". None of this matter one way or another to Catholics and Orthodox Christians. We have no problem with the idea that monotheism evolved from polytheism. Why would that damage our faith in God? You must have been a fundamentalist protestant prior to your fall to atheism, because it appears that, like most athiest, you are attacking fundamentalist protestantism.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

I love it when atheists think they're biblical scholars. "You know what the Bible really teaches, don't you? Trust me, it doesn't teach what you think it does! I don't care what your scholars or teachers say it means, if I can read it and see it for myself, that's what it really teaches."

LOL! I like the fact that they're both professionally and fully dressed and sitting in a dry room.

I've always wondered about the infinite universes. Somehow they can conceive that as a possibility, but when it comes to God, infinity is a realm of nothingness or it describes themselves ...this is a new argument to me

« Last Edit: February 17, 2011, 02:22:45 PM by minasoliman »

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

I love it when atheists think they're biblical scholars. "You know what the Bible really teaches, don't you? Trust me, it doesn't teach what you think it does! I don't care what your scholars or teachers say it means, if I can read it and see it for myself, that's what it really teaches."

If I could take an Apache Helicopter, demonstrate it's power, and then Land it in the middle of that era, or even Jerusalem, It would be very likely to have made Jesus rather insignificant. You might have ended up worshiping the Apache, or if I was in a group, multiple Apaches.

So yes, there is some truth in religion, as in how it develops and how it interprets identical information in abstract. It's just like 2 people can view a red truck in different perspectives even though the information is identical. One could derive it as GOD like, another as a threat, another as awesome, another as ugly, or another as to manly or sexist. Why? because we have all this other information stored in our head that includes language, and our experiences since we were born to which shapes how our minds perceive reality even though it doesn't actually change the reality of reality. This is the fundamentals of development of morals, ethics, and opinions. Usually, such things are manipulable through emotion, and fear because that is the nature of consciousness. It's the positive, negative, and neutral feedback of the continuous flow of information through our senses, and the environment. It's the same process that governs evolution, adaptation, natural selection, choices, decisions or any phenomenon to which can exist, or does exist. It's energy processing energy because energy can interfere with itself to give rise to complex. It's an energy driven ecological system to which is a chaotic system with simple principles that govern it.

This however doesn't mean there isn't the possibility of consciousness in pure energy form to where the biological brain isn't required. So I don't rule out higher beings, or even the plausibility of more powerful entities than ourselves. I just realize that none of them can create that which we all require to exist. And that is informational value and substance.. So my view strayed from common religious ideologies through my own exploring of information theory.

This is where you are wrong. Even thought different people read the same happenings and information differently that doesn't take anything away from it's truth in substance and non changeability. substance on it's own doesn't need to evolve in this case. What's evolving is our perception and our understanding of it. Our mind can be shaped and formed to see the substance for what it really is. Without the substance changing to conform to what we see. Just because we can't see it as such doesn't mean that it's changing, rather it is us who need to learn and see it for what it truly is. A red truck is a red truck after all.

In Orthodox understanding, the idea of a powerful genocidal God is not a matter of advocating the literality of the story, but on its surface, for a primitive "babyish" minded people, it's a matter of keeping them in check (if you do bad things, bad things will happen to you, but on the flip side, in the good stories, if you do good things, good things will happen to you; see how bad things happened to bad people?). The idea of the NT in theological terms is that the human race has reached a certain level of maturity in thinking, and so such ideas can be seen in a spiritual manner, like the destruction of sin and evil (consider the fact that many of the "genocides" included the destruction of all the animals and booty, which is illogical at the time for certain spoils of war).

That's self-inventing your own context. Which of course is disingenuous.. The cherry picking of what you choose to take literally and what you don't is pretty funny. Regardless, even the concept or introduction of genocide alone is enough to call it a retard of the mouth, and very poor leadership skills. And the fact that sin could even "exist" is just poor design entirely.

In Orthodox understanding, the idea of a powerful genocidal God is not a matter of advocating the literality of the story, but on its surface, for a primitive "babyish" minded people, it's a matter of keeping them in check (if you do bad things, bad things will happen to you, but on the flip side, in the good stories, if you do good things, good things will happen to you; see how bad things happened to bad people?). The idea of the NT in theological terms is that the human race has reached a certain level of maturity in thinking, and so such ideas can be seen in a spiritual manner, like the destruction of sin and evil (consider the fact that many of the "genocides" included the destruction of all the animals and booty, which is illogical at the time for certain spoils of war).

That's self-inventing your own context. Which of course is disingenuous.. The cherry picking of what you choose to take literally and what you don't is pretty funny. Regardless, even the concept or introduction of genocide alone is enough to call it a retard of the mouth, and very poor leadership skills. And the fact that sin could even "exist" is just poor design entirely.

Is that so? Where in the Bible does it say it all must be taken literally or not literally?

Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

In Orthodox understanding, the idea of a powerful genocidal God is not a matter of advocating the literality of the story, but on its surface, for a primitive "babyish" minded people, it's a matter of keeping them in check (if you do bad things, bad things will happen to you, but on the flip side, in the good stories, if you do good things, good things will happen to you; see how bad things happened to bad people?). The idea of the NT in theological terms is that the human race has reached a certain level of maturity in thinking, and so such ideas can be seen in a spiritual manner, like the destruction of sin and evil (consider the fact that many of the "genocides" included the destruction of all the animals and booty, which is illogical at the time for certain spoils of war).

That's self-inventing your own context. Which of course is disingenuous.. The cherry picking of what you choose to take literally and what you don't is pretty funny. Regardless, even the concept or introduction of genocide alone is enough to call it a retard of the mouth, and very poor leadership skills. And the fact that sin could even "exist" is just poor design entirely.

Do you have any Patristics to show that I'm disingenuous? Because I sent a link by Origen to prove my point. There was also Philo of Alexandria who took the same course, written before he knew anything about Christ.

Your literalist past is disingenuous to Christian tradition. And you're full of it for trying to tell an Orthodox how to interpret their own Scriptures.

« Last Edit: February 18, 2011, 09:04:06 AM by minasoliman »

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

In Orthodox understanding, the idea of a powerful genocidal God is not a matter of advocating the literality of the story, but on its surface, for a primitive "babyish" minded people, it's a matter of keeping them in check (if you do bad things, bad things will happen to you, but on the flip side, in the good stories, if you do good things, good things will happen to you; see how bad things happened to bad people?). The idea of the NT in theological terms is that the human race has reached a certain level of maturity in thinking, and so such ideas can be seen in a spiritual manner, like the destruction of sin and evil (consider the fact that many of the "genocides" included the destruction of all the animals and booty, which is illogical at the time for certain spoils of war).

That's self-inventing your own context. Which of course is disingenuous.. The cherry picking of what you choose to take literally and what you don't is pretty funny.

Well, the Scriptures of the Holy Bible have always belonged to the community that produced them, along with a consistent tradition of how to interpret it. There is no choosing on our end, just obedience to what has been passed down to us from the very people that produced it.

Quote

Regardless, even the concept or introduction of genocide alone is enough to call it a retard of the mouth, and very poor leadership skills.

As much as I loathe genocide, and with all due respect, but Israel is still here today while many of those other cultures are not. I'd say in a hostile age where the chosen people of God were a small, nomadic tribe not very capable of defeating enemies by themselves, this was "good" leadership.

Quote

And the fact that sin could even "exist" is just poor design entirely.

In Orthodox understanding, the idea of a powerful genocidal God is not a matter of advocating the literality of the story, but on its surface, for a primitive "babyish" minded people, it's a matter of keeping them in check (if you do bad things, bad things will happen to you, but on the flip side, in the good stories, if you do good things, good things will happen to you; see how bad things happened to bad people?). The idea of the NT in theological terms is that the human race has reached a certain level of maturity in thinking, and so such ideas can be seen in a spiritual manner, like the destruction of sin and evil (consider the fact that many of the "genocides" included the destruction of all the animals and booty, which is illogical at the time for certain spoils of war).

That's self-inventing your own context. Which of course is disingenuous.. The cherry picking of what you choose to take literally and what you don't is pretty funny. Regardless, even the concept or introduction of genocide alone is enough to call it a retard of the mouth, and very poor leadership skills. And the fact that sin could even "exist" is just poor design entirely.

What occurred in the Old Testament wasn't genocide or the advocacy of genocide. If you take the stories literally - which you shouldn't because their written in an Ancient Near East war narrative, meaning they're exaggerated, and multiple Church Fathers didn't take them literally - then it's still not genocide because no one was targeted for their race, but for their behavior.

Get the book Is God a Moral Monster by Paul Copan, or simply look at the peer-reviewed article he published under the same title.

Logged

“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus

In Orthodox understanding, the idea of a powerful genocidal God is not a matter of advocating the literality of the story, but on its surface, for a primitive "babyish" minded people, it's a matter of keeping them in check (if you do bad things, bad things will happen to you, but on the flip side, in the good stories, if you do good things, good things will happen to you; see how bad things happened to bad people?). The idea of the NT in theological terms is that the human race has reached a certain level of maturity in thinking, and so such ideas can be seen in a spiritual manner, like the destruction of sin and evil (consider the fact that many of the "genocides" included the destruction of all the animals and booty, which is illogical at the time for certain spoils of war).

That's self-inventing your own context. Which of course is disingenuous.. The cherry picking of what you choose to take literally and what you don't is pretty funny. Regardless, even the concept or introduction of genocide alone is enough to call it a retard of the mouth, and very poor leadership skills. And the fact that sin could even "exist" is just poor design entirely.

What occurred in the Old Testament wasn't genocide or the advocacy of genocide. If you take the stories literally - which you shouldn't because their written in an Ancient Near East war narrative, meaning they're exaggerated, and multiple Church Fathers didn't take them literally - then it's still not genocide because no one was targeted for their race, but for their behavior.

Get the book Is God a Moral Monster by Paul Copan, or simply look at the peer-reviewed article he published under the same title.

Jigga-what?

So everything is non-"literal" until Jesus? Exaggeration does mean the Israelites were not destroying peoples and their gods in the sake of and in obedience to God.

God had to work with what was available. Which includes genocide, fratricide, incest, murder, on and on and on to get a genealogy from Adam to the Theotokos so that the Incarnation could become possible.

What always amazed me about the OT is the fact, these things were kept in and never tossed it. It is about an honest and scandalous picture of a people struggling with God as I have ever read.

It offends modern Christian and secular mores, so both rush to toss it in their own ways.

In Orthodox understanding, the idea of a powerful genocidal God is not a matter of advocating the literality of the story, but on its surface, for a primitive "babyish" minded people, it's a matter of keeping them in check (if you do bad things, bad things will happen to you, but on the flip side, in the good stories, if you do good things, good things will happen to you; see how bad things happened to bad people?). The idea of the NT in theological terms is that the human race has reached a certain level of maturity in thinking, and so such ideas can be seen in a spiritual manner, like the destruction of sin and evil (consider the fact that many of the "genocides" included the destruction of all the animals and booty, which is illogical at the time for certain spoils of war).

That's self-inventing your own context. Which of course is disingenuous.. The cherry picking of what you choose to take literally and what you don't is pretty funny. Regardless, even the concept or introduction of genocide alone is enough to call it a retard of the mouth, and very poor leadership skills. And the fact that sin could even "exist" is just poor design entirely.

What occurred in the Old Testament wasn't genocide or the advocacy of genocide. If you take the stories literally - which you shouldn't because their written in an Ancient Near East war narrative, meaning they're exaggerated, and multiple Church Fathers didn't take them literally - then it's still not genocide because no one was targeted for their race, but for their behavior.

Get the book Is God a Moral Monster by Paul Copan, or simply look at the peer-reviewed article he published under the same title.

Jigga-what?

So everything is non-"literal" until Jesus? Exaggeration does mean the Israelites were not destroying peoples and their gods in the sake of and in obedience to God.

God had to work with what was available. Which includes genocide, fratricide, incest, murder, on and on and on to get a genealogy from Adam to the Theotokos so that the Incarnation could become possible.

What always amazed me about the OT is the fact, these things were kept in and never tossed it. It is about an honest and scandalous picture of a people struggling with God as I have ever read.

It offends modern Christian and secular mores, so both rush to toss it in their own ways.

No, these stories were indeed exaggerated. Sometimes, a whole group of people that were considered destroyed in one chapter actually still exists later in another chapter in a different book. I used to struggle with this point, but it is clear I have personally not found a Church father actually advocate a literal interpretation of these particular chapters. Usually, either they were completely ignored in their exegesis, or they were teaching an allegorical interpretation of it.

« Last Edit: February 18, 2011, 10:57:50 PM by minasoliman »

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

In Orthodox understanding, the idea of a powerful genocidal God is not a matter of advocating the literality of the story, but on its surface, for a primitive "babyish" minded people, it's a matter of keeping them in check (if you do bad things, bad things will happen to you, but on the flip side, in the good stories, if you do good things, good things will happen to you; see how bad things happened to bad people?). The idea of the NT in theological terms is that the human race has reached a certain level of maturity in thinking, and so such ideas can be seen in a spiritual manner, like the destruction of sin and evil (consider the fact that many of the "genocides" included the destruction of all the animals and booty, which is illogical at the time for certain spoils of war).

That's self-inventing your own context. Which of course is disingenuous.. The cherry picking of what you choose to take literally and what you don't is pretty funny. Regardless, even the concept or introduction of genocide alone is enough to call it a retard of the mouth, and very poor leadership skills. And the fact that sin could even "exist" is just poor design entirely.

What occurred in the Old Testament wasn't genocide or the advocacy of genocide. If you take the stories literally - which you shouldn't because their written in an Ancient Near East war narrative, meaning they're exaggerated, and multiple Church Fathers didn't take them literally - then it's still not genocide because no one was targeted for their race, but for their behavior.

Get the book Is God a Moral Monster by Paul Copan, or simply look at the peer-reviewed article he published under the same title.

Jigga-what?

So everything is non-"literal" until Jesus? Exaggeration does mean the Israelites were not destroying peoples and their gods in the sake of and in obedience to God.

God had to work with what was available. Which includes genocide, fratricide, incest, murder, on and on and on to get a genealogy from Adam to the Theotokos so that the Incarnation could become possible.

What always amazed me about the OT is the fact, these things were kept in and never tossed it. It is about an honest and scandalous picture of a people struggling with God as I have ever read.

It offends modern Christian and secular mores, so both rush to toss it in their own ways.

^ This.

God had to build a nation in a very primitive society. Let's not be anachronistic on top of exceedingly silly.

Quote from: minasoliman

No, these stories were indeed exaggerated. Sometimes, a whole group of people that were considered destroyed in one chapter actually still exists later in another chapter in a different book. I used to struggle with this point, but it is clear I have personally not found a Church father actually advocate a literal interpretation of these particular chapters. Usually, either they were completely ignored in their exegesis, or they were teaching an allegorical interpretation of it.

I think calling it exaggeration would be equally anachronistic. The strict, verifiable journalistic standards that we are used to did not exist in antiquity, so it's not quite fair to simply say "exaggeration"; it's more complicated than that.

Nor do I think we need to say that, since something is not precise or journalistically accurate, it is allegory. Not to say that it may not have propaganda aspects, but no more than any other ancient writing that we accept more or less at face value.

IMO, the best way to approach these seemingly-outlandish stories is that they are true, even if they are not precisely fact.

IMO, the best way to approach these seemingly-outlandish stories is that they are true, even if they are not precisely fact.

Ahh, and that's where the cherry picking starts.. When a book of "truth" has outladish stories it can be said in fair argument that anything in the book can be considered to be an outlandish story.. Such as Jesus's resurrection. Or the existence of a Deity. Funny how that works. And then off to the self-invented interpretations of context of anything in the Bible.

IMO, the best way to approach these seemingly-outlandish stories is that they are true, even if they are not precisely fact.

Ahh, and that's where the cherry picking starts.. When a book of "truth" has outladish stories it can be said in fair argument that anything in the book can be considered to be an outlandish story.. Such as Jesus's resurrection. Or the existence of a Deity. Funny how that works. And then off to the self-invented interpretations of context of anything in the Bible.

I am studying for a degree in environmental science and frankly the more I learn the more convinced of God I am.

One thing for example is the sheer amount of differences in the genetics of people and the fact that we are still able to produce children together. If you don't know much about this you may assume that people are more or less genetically the same. You hear how we have 98% of our genes in common with chimpanzees... but really that should tell you how different 2% really is. When a mother and father have a child together there isn't just a 50% chance or 25% of them getting one or the other's, their genes actually do all kinds of crazy things where they mix up. Actually, there's something like 7 billion possibilities for them to mix up and become new versions of genes that neither parent actually had. This might not mean much to most people but to me it seems miraculous that you can actually get a functioning and healthy organism out of such a system on a consistent basis, and it seems miraculous that any two people actually have similar enough genetic code that its actually workable between two people from any place on earth even after thousands of years of their populations being separate and becoming what really is desperately dissimilar.

I am studying for a degree in environmental science and frankly the more I learn the more convinced of God I am.

You have a long way to go. But I wish you luck in your studies.

Quote

One thing for example is the sheer amount of differences in the genetics of people and the fact that we are still able to produce children together.

This first statement tells me that you have a long way to go in your studies.

Quote

You hear how we have 98% of our genes in common with chimpanzees... but really that should tell you how different 2% really is

This is not an argument because this right here tells me you haven't probably passed your first class in genetics. Lets evaluate the following:

0010100100

You sate "Are shown to have 98% of our genes in common with Chimps and only 2% difference"..And you seemingly had done so while not comprehending that such changes are not important in regards to the percentage of change but rather the change in function of the differences in the genome.. Hence, the above set of digits can be considered binary code to which the two codes can server two different functions. The effects greatly depend on the code difference and not directly to the percentage of difference in the code. such as even the fusion of both codes together as seen in the fusion of chromosome 2. The most visible difference is that all apes have one more pair of chromosomes than people do. The reason is simple enough to find: at some point in the past, two middle-sized ape chromosomes fused together in the ancestors of all human beings to form the large human chromosome known as chromosome #2. This fusion would make Humans and Chimps completely sterile of each other to where Macro-evolution has taken place (the point where they can no-longer breed together and become separate species). And that is not the only thing that separates us from Chimps. there is a lot of C-banding to which differentiates us from Chimps (junk DNA sequences) In the human the characteristic zones are at the middle, or centromere, of each chromosome... are slightly below the centromere on chromosomes 1, 9, and 16; and make up most of the Y chromosome. We humans are the only species of the Great Apes to have this pattern in our Genome.

IMO, the best way to approach these seemingly-outlandish stories is that they are true, even if they are not precisely fact.

Ahh, and that's where the cherry picking starts.. When a book of "truth" has outladish stories it can be said in fair argument that anything in the book can be considered to be an outlandish story.. Such as Jesus's resurrection. Or the existence of a Deity. Funny how that works. And then off to the self-invented interpretations of context of anything in the Bible.

Your reading comprehension needs work.

Why would that need work? I stated a fact. Basically if you want to get down to very basis of the that argument. It's man assuming the will of an invisible GOD they keep locked away in the invisible stable while trying to argue he's incomprehensible unless you believe all their assumed nonsense on faith alone.. Yeah... That's like duct taping the horses mouth knowing it can't speak for itself. Worse yet, it's equivalent to putting words into it's mouth without proving it said anything at all. You then get the self-invented interpretations of what the bible says by Christians themselves who even go as far as to add words to scripture to change it's meaning to manipulate it into a context in their favor. It's disingenuous from the beginning.

IMO, the best way to approach these seemingly-outlandish stories is that they are true, even if they are not precisely fact.

Ahh, and that's where the cherry picking starts.. When a book of "truth" has outladish stories it can be said in fair argument that anything in the book can be considered to be an outlandish story.. Such as Jesus's resurrection. Or the existence of a Deity. Funny how that works. And then off to the self-invented interpretations of context of anything in the Bible.

The Bible is a collection of some 80 books, written over the course of 2000 years by dozens of different people in many different genres. To paint with such a broad brush is the height of ignorance.

You should learn about the things you're debating beforehand so you don't say silly things in the future.

IMO, the best way to approach these seemingly-outlandish stories is that they are true, even if they are not precisely fact.

Ahh, and that's where the cherry picking starts.. When a book of "truth" has outladish stories it can be said in fair argument that anything in the book can be considered to be an outlandish story.. Such as Jesus's resurrection. Or the existence of a Deity. Funny how that works. And then off to the self-invented interpretations of context of anything in the Bible.

Your reading comprehension needs work.

Why would that need work? I stated a fact. Basically if you want to get down to very basis of the that argument. It's man assuming the will of an invisible GOD they keep locked away in the invisible stable while trying to argue he's incomprehensible unless you believe all their assumed nonsense on faith alone.. Yeah... That's like duct taping the horses mouth knowing it can't speak for itself. Worse yet, it's equivalent to putting words into it's mouth without proving it said anything at all. You then get the self-invented interpretations of what the bible says by Christians themselves who even go as far as to add words to scripture to change it's meaning to manipulate it into a context in their favor. It's disingenuous from the beginning.

Again, you're treating us like sola scripturists. We do not interpret the Bible for ourselves in Orthodoxy, since that causes all sorts of strange beliefs to appear (nor do we adhere to sola fide), so your caricature is meaningless.

In Orthodox understanding, the idea of a powerful genocidal God is not a matter of advocating the literality of the story, but on its surface, for a primitive "babyish" minded people, it's a matter of keeping them in check (if you do bad things, bad things will happen to you, but on the flip side, in the good stories, if you do good things, good things will happen to you; see how bad things happened to bad people?). The idea of the NT in theological terms is that the human race has reached a certain level of maturity in thinking, and so such ideas can be seen in a spiritual manner, like the destruction of sin and evil (consider the fact that many of the "genocides" included the destruction of all the animals and booty, which is illogical at the time for certain spoils of war).

That's self-inventing your own context. Which of course is disingenuous.. The cherry picking of what you choose to take literally and what you don't is pretty funny. Regardless, even the concept or introduction of genocide alone is enough to call it a retard of the mouth, and very poor leadership skills. And the fact that sin could even "exist" is just poor design entirely.

What occurred in the Old Testament wasn't genocide or the advocacy of genocide. If you take the stories literally - which you shouldn't because their written in an Ancient Near East war narrative, meaning they're exaggerated, and multiple Church Fathers didn't take them literally - then it's still not genocide because no one was targeted for their race, but for their behavior.

Get the book Is God a Moral Monster by Paul Copan, or simply look at the peer-reviewed article he published under the same title.

Jigga-what?

So everything is non-"literal" until Jesus? Exaggeration does mean the Israelites were not destroying peoples and their gods in the sake of and in obedience to God.

God had to work with what was available. Which includes genocide, fratricide, incest, murder, on and on and on to get a genealogy from Adam to the Theotokos so that the Incarnation could become possible.

What always amazed me about the OT is the fact, these things were kept in and never tossed it. It is about an honest and scandalous picture of a people struggling with God as I have ever read.

It offends modern Christian and secular mores, so both rush to toss it in their own ways.

I'm not simply writing it off or saying such events didn't happen. What I am arguing is that we shouldn't take such writings at face value because they were written in a war narrative format, meaning that there were some exaggerations put in place. That's not simply writing it off, but merely pointing out the facts as they were.

Likewise, I agree that God was working with what He was given. Hence why the original Law was incomplete. And while the Israelites did kill certain people, we should also understand that it may not be to the extend presented in the Old Testament due to the writing style.

Logged

“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus

Zeus, you nred to stop thinking about this as an "either-or" question. The Universe could well have started as a Big Bang, and Evolution is likely the origin of the various species, but this doesn't preclude the possibility that God is behind them.

Ok, agreed. May be God was behind it, may be not: got a question specifically about Christianity though (probably one all of you have heard before).

If I'm correct about this: The basis of Christianity—and the whole point of Jesus resurrecting—was to give each person the freedom to be saved from original sin. Original sin only exists because of Adam & Eve. So if evolution as the origin of species is true (not just human evolution but everything from protoplasm to primates), then would it mean that the Adam & Eve story/Christianity is not true?

I know that both evolution and the Adam & Eve story can both be true if God physically placed all the evidence for evolution there himself, but I'm slightly more inclined to believe that the evidence is legitimate.

Zeus, you nred to stop thinking about this as an "either-or" question. The Universe could well have started as a Big Bang, and Evolution is likely the origin of the various species, but this doesn't preclude the possibility that God is behind them.

Ok, agreed. May be God was behind it, may be not: got a question specifically about Christianity though (probably one all of you have heard before).

If I'm correct about this: The basis of Christianity—and the whole point of Jesus resurrecting—was to give each person the freedom to be saved from original sin. Original sin only exists because of Adam & Eve. So if evolution as the origin of species is true (not just human evolution but everything from protoplasm to primates), then would it mean that the Adam & Eve story/Christianity is not true?

I know that both evolution and the Adam & Eve story can both be true if God physically placed all the evidence for evolution there himself, but I'm slightly more inclined to believe that the evidence is legitimate.

When a mother and father have a child together there isn't just a 50% chance or 25% of them getting one or the other's, their genes actually do all kinds of crazy things where they mix up.

It must amaze you that people come out as people lol.. uhh, you don't know what you are talking about. :/

Actually you don't know what I am talking about (not that you don't know about it but you have mis-identified what I am speaking of) and going on about something else. Btw, what I am talking about in that sentence are called transposons. Its amazing it works at all, no other encoding system would work and produce coherent results with such variability. If you disagree I don't care, but it doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about.

IMO, the best way to approach these seemingly-outlandish stories is that they are true, even if they are not precisely fact.

Ahh, and that's where the cherry picking starts.. When a book of "truth" has outladish stories it can be said in fair argument that anything in the book can be considered to be an outlandish story.. Such as Jesus's resurrection. Or the existence of a Deity. Funny how that works. And then off to the self-invented interpretations of context of anything in the Bible.

The Bible is a collection of some 80 books, written over the course of 2000 years by dozens of different people in many different genres. To paint with such a broad brush is the height of ignorance.

You should learn about the things you're debating beforehand so you don't say silly things in the future.

Actually we can because the Bible is supposed to be GOD's letter to humanity.. Perhaps you might admit that it wasn't divinely written?? If so, you have a problem sir... And I've even seen Christians add words, or try to change to meaning of scripture to mean something else more often than I can count. Like I said, if you took all the Christians in the world and compiled all there interpretations of the scripture, it would be completely and utterly incoherent. Everyone seems to have their own self-invented context. Especially when going around professing the will of a Deity that doesn't speak for itself. A perfect example is when theists deflect from Jesus comments about tossing Mountains into the sea ect.. They start self-inventing their own interpretations, add words to, or intentionally don't follow the literal context in which it were written.

I thought he was omniscient, and the creator of all that there is to be seen, heard, smelled or sensed? He should have known better before hand? Oh wait, maybe it knew all along and thought it would be great! Just like birth defects, animals ripping each other apart for food, or peoples ability to blow each other up and commit genocide. Would you tell me that he wouldn't have known everything Hitler would have done prior to his creation? And the logical magical answer to get people to follow the ten commandments would be to depict himself committing genocide? Seriously?

Quote

sola scripturists

you still base much of your belief on scripture. The rest is that of your own self-invention, or professing of GOD.. Now try letting GOD himself profess his own agenda and will.

When a mother and father have a child together there isn't just a 50% chance or 25% of them getting one or the other's, their genes actually do all kinds of crazy things where they mix up.

It must amaze you that people come out as people lol.. uhh, you don't know what you are talking about. :/

Actually you don't know what I am talking about (not that you don't know about it but you have mis-identified what I am speaking of) and going on about something else. Btw, what I am talking about in that sentence are called transposons. Its amazing it works at all, no other encoding system would work and produce coherent results with such variability. If you disagree I don't care, but it doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about.

The way you phrased your argument could have gone in different directions. You should have specified what you were talking about. I'm not a mind reader. However, lets touch on that subject for a second

I would Like you to post the Class II DNAtransposons and how this relates to evolution

Quote

Its amazing it works at all

not really because such things can simply be stated as:

Quote

3) "Information is any type of pattern that influences the formation or transformation of other patterns.

IMO, the best way to approach these seemingly-outlandish stories is that they are true, even if they are not precisely fact.

Ahh, and that's where the cherry picking starts.. When a book of "truth" has outladish stories it can be said in fair argument that anything in the book can be considered to be an outlandish story.. Such as Jesus's resurrection. Or the existence of a Deity. Funny how that works. And then off to the self-invented interpretations of context of anything in the Bible.

The Bible is a collection of some 80 books, written over the course of 2000 years by dozens of different people in many different genres. To paint with such a broad brush is the height of ignorance.

You should learn about the things you're debating beforehand so you don't say silly things in the future.

Actually we can because the Bible is supposed to be GOD's letter to humanity.. Perhaps you might admit that it wasn't divinely written?? If so, you have a problem sir... And I've even seen Christians add words, or try to change to meaning of scripture to mean something else more often than I can count. Like I said, if you took all the Christians in the world and compiled all there interpretations of the scripture, it would be completely and utterly incoherent. Everyone seems to have their own self-invented context. Especially when going around professing the will of a Deity that doesn't speak for itself. A perfect example is when theists deflect from Jesus comments about tossing Mountains into the sea ect.. They start self-inventing their own interpretations, add words to, or intentionally don't follow the literal context in which it were written.

It's a good thing Orthodoxy doesn't base itself off the innerancy of the Bible. Furthermore why would we care about other interpretations by all Christians? Many of them condone heresies, without even knowing it. The only sole authority to interpret the Holy Scriptures is the one who gave birth to them, The Church.

« Last Edit: February 20, 2011, 03:06:37 AM by Aposphet »

Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”